eddie2 wrote:what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

actually it was Night Strike

Night Strike wrote:This right here is the completely FALSE mentality that gives rise to all of these stupid clan-sitting cases and blatant rule violations. You do NOT have the right to have someone else's password 24/7 in case they MIGHT miss a turn. Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous. A missed turn is literally not the end of the world. If you lose a game or clan war because of it, then so be it. Breaking the rules to have someone jump on your account anytime they want is not worth it. If Chuck was missing too many turns and becoming a liability in the clan war, then why did you keep putting him in those games? You deal with the problem when the next set of games become available, not when you have their password and can log in any time you feel like it. It's that mentality that every single game must be won at all costs (including breaking the rules) that has caused so many people to make clan wars completely intolerable to everybody else who doesn't adhere to that fundamentally flawed philosophy.

eddie2 wrote:what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

actually it was Night Strike

Night Strike wrote:This right here is the completely FALSE mentality that gives rise to all of these stupid clan-sitting cases and blatant rule violations. You do NOT have the right to have someone else's password 24/7 in case they MIGHT miss a turn. Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous. A missed turn is literally not the end of the world. If you lose a game or clan war because of it, then so be it. Breaking the rules to have someone jump on your account anytime they want is not worth it. If Chuck was missing too many turns and becoming a liability in the clan war, then why did you keep putting him in those games? You deal with the problem when the next set of games become available, not when you have their password and can log in any time you feel like it. It's that mentality that every single game must be won at all costs (including breaking the rules) that has caused so many people to make clan wars completely intolerable to everybody else who doesn't adhere to that fundamentally flawed philosophy.

So, what do you think, is this his own thoughts or if what he says is wide spread valid rules we have got here in this site ? Thank you for this nice catch, i knew i saw it somewhere but you thankfully brought this up here...Bruce, you are a CD leader, NS is tournament head director, i am ordinary player...Lol, i mean which one is valid, your words ? KA's ? NS ?Which of above comments are we gonna take to be valid rules ?I disagree with what NS says, his opinions solely showing the battle result between his own ethics, morals, values and outcome of a clan war result. He puts ethics, values one step in the front of clan war result, however i dont. To me, i will do whatever neccesary for my clan not to miss a turn, thus to improve odds to win the whole war SITTIN INSIDE THE RULEs. If i see my clan mate is in danger of missing a turn in a clan war game, i ll jump in to take the turn after i try possible ways to reach to him/her (PMs, wall messages, if i have got then email or instant message, so on..)... I won't let a missed turn to happen in a clan war game...

hey hey my my, rock and roll can never die, there is more to the picture, than meets the eyeplaying games with me ? smells like meeting the death...

eddie2 wrote:what he is saying nicky is that king achilles has already said in a thread that players are not allowed to hold onto other players passwords, but clan moderators are saying in these rules/discussions that you can do this, so is there going to be a conflict here where players are following rules allowed by clan moderators then someone gets pissed off and opens a c and a report.. will the players get a busted/ noted/ warned because they are breaking a site rule ???

like i have said love the idea of new rules, just think they need to be clarified more because they are vague like a lot of rules. So as they stand just now you do not know what you can or cannot do properly.

actually it was Night Strike

Night Strike wrote:This right here is the completely FALSE mentality that gives rise to all of these stupid clan-sitting cases and blatant rule violations. You do NOT have the right to have someone else's password 24/7 in case they MIGHT miss a turn. Account sitting is supposed to only be used when people know ahead of time that they will be away from the computer and can change their password to a temporary one for the duration of the account sitting. Jumping into everybody's turns simply because they might miss is utterly ridiculous. A missed turn is literally not the end of the world. If you lose a game or clan war because of it, then so be it. Breaking the rules to have someone jump on your account anytime they want is not worth it. If Chuck was missing too many turns and becoming a liability in the clan war, then why did you keep putting him in those games? You deal with the problem when the next set of games become available, not when you have their password and can log in any time you feel like it. It's that mentality that every single game must be won at all costs (including breaking the rules) that has caused so many people to make clan wars completely intolerable to everybody else who doesn't adhere to that fundamentally flawed philosophy.

So, what do you think, is this his own thoughts or if what he says is wide spread valid rules we have got here in this site ? Thank you for this nice catch, i knew i saw it somewhere but you thankfully brought this up here...Bruce, you are a CD leader, NS is tournament head director, i am ordinary player...Lol, i mean which one is valid, your words ? KA's ? NS ?Which of above comments are we gonna take to be valid rules ?I disagree with what NS says, his opinions solely showing the battle result between his own ethics, morals, values and outcome of a clan war result. He puts ethics, values one step in the front of clan war result, however i dont. To me, i will do whatever neccesary for my clan not to miss a turn, thus to improve odds to win the whole war SITTIN INSIDE THE RULEs. If i see my clan mate is in danger of missing a turn in a clan war game, i ll jump in to take the turn after i try possible ways to reach to him/her (PMs, wall messages, if i have got then email or instant message, so on..)... I won't let a missed turn to happen in a clan war game...

NS made those comments back when sharing passwords and jumping in and out of each others accounts at any time of the day was a common tactic of some players. 1 C&A case banned 8+ players from playing any games together and there were some big names amongst that group.

what it boils down to HardAttack is there are some players that believe winning at any cost is acceptable, even if it means sharing their accounts 24/7 to gain an advantage over the other team/clan. then there is the group that believe this is Account Sharing and is against site rules.

the battle between Evil & Good has been raging for years, with the occassional flare up like we have now.

All of the above quotes are from the CoF C&A case, I believe. After that ruling some people had the same question, that HA is asking here, and so a new thread was opened to get some clarification. In this new thread king achilles said:

king achilles wrote:Having someone's password does not automatically or necessarily mean there is an account sharing going on but the temptation that you can freely log in to someone's account even when your not suppose to will always be there. It's what you guys do that could break the account sitting guideline - so be careful not to abuse it.

And this was his last statement on the issue, afaik. It´s still a bit vague, but as I read it: There is no rule against PW sharing itself. The site is aware, that this has become general practice in clans & regular teams. This is ok, as long as the PW is only used to step in in an emergency & take a turn, that is in danger of being missed. It is not ok & can be punished as abuse, when people log into each others accounts at leisure, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and especially in order to gain strategic advantages in games.

I think it would be good to allow some clans to modify this rules, for example al those rules apply by default, unless BOTH clans agree to remove any of the rules. for example clans may agree to remove only rules 3,4 or only rule 2, and keep all other rules.

Some clans do not care a lot about opponent sitting, they play just to have plain fun in their own games and not even care for total result. some players do not even know what is clan about. they just join games that they are invited. so let for those ones to not apply all rules, if both involved sides agrees to that. if only one side does not agree then rulle apply.

Some clans play this game on very high competitive level, where every move is discussed among members of the team, and then sometimes happen account owner cannot be online when final decision about move is done. In that cases, and when playing level is very competitive, strict rules are needed, and strict declared punishment. So we all know what will happen to player who do not notice in chat that he was sitting, what will happen to player who plays maximum own games and make extra sitting, and what will happen to the ones who put absent players into games. Low clans are not guilty that top 2 clans are fingering between each other who did a single (or more often) sitting abuse, is it intentionally or not, is it fair or not, is it rule breaking or not. for them, me included, strict rules on the place are very needed so we can say who cheat and who do not cheat, and we can have proper punishment for the ones who cheat. But some lower clans (I am not generalizing, this may apply also for some top clans like previous argument may also apply for lower clans) just play this game for having basic risk fun with as much as possible simple rules and as low as possible restrictions.

So let them play simple, if they both wish so, and let the ones who take this game more than just a game to have strict rules which will apply in their challenges to avoid any going around the rules.

ahunda wrote:All of the above quotes are from the CoF C&A case, I believe. After that ruling some people had the same question, that HA is asking here, and so a new thread was opened to get some clarification. In this new thread king achilles said:

king achilles wrote:Having someone's password does not automatically or necessarily mean there is an account sharing going on but the temptation that you can freely log in to someone's account even when your not suppose to will always be there. It's what you guys do that could break the account sitting guideline - so be careful not to abuse it.

And this was his last statement on the issue, afaik. It´s still a bit vague, but as I read it: There is no rule against PW sharing itself. The site is aware, that this has become general practice in clans & regular teams. This is ok, as long as the PW is only used to step in in an emergency & take a turn, that is in danger of being missed. It is not ok & can be punished as abuse, when people log into each others accounts at leisure, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, and especially in order to gain strategic advantages in games.

i appreciate for the routing me through into the link buddy,seems like it is where my answer is.

hey hey my my, rock and roll can never die, there is more to the picture, than meets the eyeplaying games with me ? smells like meeting the death...

josko.ri wrote:I think it would be good to allow some clans to modify this rules, for example al those rules apply by default, unless BOTH clans agree to remove any of the rules. for example clans may agree to remove only rules 3,4 or only rule 2, and keep all other rules.

Some clans do not care a lot about opponent sitting, they play just to have plain fun in their own games and not even care for total result. some players do not even know what is clan about. they just join games that they are invited. so let for those ones to not apply all rules, if both involved sides agrees to that. if only one side does not agree then rulle apply.

Some clans play this game on very high competitive level, where every move is discussed among members of the team, and then sometimes happen account owner cannot be online when final decision about move is done. In that cases, and when playing level is very competitive, strict rules are needed, and strict declared punishment. So we all know what will happen to player who do not notice in chat that he was sitting, what will happen to player who plays maximum own games and make extra sitting, and what will happen to the ones who put absent players into games. Low clans are not guilty that top 2 clans are fingering between each other who did a single (or more often) sitting abuse, is it intentionally or not, is it fair or not, is it rule breaking or not. for them, me included, strict rules on the place are very needed so we can say who cheat and who do not cheat, and we can have proper punishment for the ones who cheat. But some lower clans (I am not generalizing, this may apply also for some top clans like previous argument may also apply for lower clans) just play this game for having basic risk fun with as much as possible simple rules and as low as possible restrictions.

So let them play simple, if they both wish so, and let the ones who take this game more than just a game to have strict rules which will apply in their challenges to avoid any going around the rules.

I'm not sure this is alright. The set up has to be the same for everybody. It should be that all Clans must modify their tactics to fit within the rules. Arbitrarily disregarding the rules because that's how you have always done it....hmmm, well aren't we here today because of that very problem? You ask for strict rules, these are - so I say be creative and work within them because they make it better for everybody, not just the "top 2"."The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."

“One of God's own prototypes.....never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

Nicky15 wrote:Now this a clean slate, we are moving forward. We must all adhere to site rules.

A clean slate for breaking previous rules?

Really?

I'm ok with the rules and whatever we need to do, but giving out some kind of blanket immunity for people who have been breaking site rules is absurd.

and raising C&A reports based upon things said in this thread is just petty and vindictive

C&A reports based on admissions of guilt is petty and vindictive? That's silly. It's like saying if I admit I had a multi in this thread it shouldn't be punished.

Breaking a site rule, that has been a rule for as long as I've been on the site, has nothing to do with these new clan rules. Account sharing has been against the rules. Anyone should be punished appropriately.

So far that sounds like betiko, macbone (or whoever in FOED he was talking about), freakns, and whoever else.

uckuki wrote:don't we have enough rules and regulations in real life, with cameras, compsand whatever following our every move?? is the goal to make cc less fun and more by-the-book place, with dice police checking our every turn? the more rules and regulations the less fun and interesting cc will be. I mean people talk about account sitting like it's doping at the Olympics.

how about this rule: take it easy.

Yes that would be lovely if nobody tried to bend the rules of common sense in regard to fair play. It's not the rules' fault ; the rules were created due to people taking advantage of their fellow players' good nature. You can take it easy all you want but you are doing just that: "taking it".

Nicky15 wrote:Now this a clean slate, we are moving forward. We must all adhere to site rules.

A clean slate for breaking previous rules?

Really?

I'm ok with the rules and whatever we need to do, but giving out some kind of blanket immunity for people who have been breaking site rules is absurd.

and raising C&A reports based upon things said in this thread is just petty and vindictive

C&A reports based on admissions of guilt is petty and vindictive? That's silly. It's like saying if I admit I had a multi in this thread it shouldn't be punished.

Breaking a site rule, that has been a rule for as long as I've been on the site, has nothing to do with these new clan rules. Account sharing has been against the rules. Anyone should be punished appropriately.

So far that sounds like betiko, macbone (or whoever in FOED he was talking about), freakns, and whoever else.

uckuki wrote:don't we have enough rules and regulations in real life, with cameras, compsand whatever following our every move?? is the goal to make cc less fun and more by-the-book place, with dice police checking our every turn? the more rules and regulations the less fun and interesting cc will be. I mean people talk about account sitting like it's doping at the Olympics.

how about this rule: take it easy.

I agree this is absurd. In all the years I've been on the site and seen 3 or 4 rounds baby sat by 1 teammate covering the other 2 guys turns I've never seen it as a deal where we need some kind of enforcement. Usually someone mentions in chat what is going on that a 3v3 is more like a 1v3 but then the situation is explained and all is well. But really, I agree with above dont let a few retardedly bad apples ruin it for everyone else. We have to deal with all the stupid people in life making life suck more every year, we do not need the politics on this site because a small minority have a stick up their butt about clanmates covering turns.

Let me remind that Account sitting is only for situations where the player is in danger of missing his turn. It is not for the purpose of safeguarding someone's games, 24 hours/day for as long as you want, nor is it for people who will intentionally not take their turns so that their account sitter or clan mate can take the turn for them. It is not a 24/7 responsibility of anyone to look after the games of their friends or clan mates as this can be seen as account sharing where more than one person is already freely logging in to one account whenever these people want to. You can only take this too far.

Account sitting is for a definite period of time and NOT for an indefinite period. You can't assign an account sitter to account sit for you for as long as his blood is running into his veins. Then you can now sleep soundly whenever or do other stuff because you know he is going to save you from missing a turn. If you are capable of taking your turn, then take it. Do not make someone be responsible for your own account or lean too much for his advise.

this is the main thing maybe i was wrong about the password sharing thing but he does highlight it must be for a defined period. not just when someone goes awol...

Eddie - Those were the quotes I was using that lead me to be under the assumption that you should not share a permanent password. But it appears as that has been clarified in other threads (including this one) since those original posts by KA was made. The idea seems to be that you can have someone's password, but you can only log into that account when that person is either on vacation or within an hour of missing a turn. Seems fair to me and I'm glad we finally got some sort of official response.

JustCallMeStupid wrote:I agree this is absurd. In all the years I've been on the site and seen 3 or 4 rounds baby sat by 1 teammate covering the other 2 guys turns I've never seen it as a deal where we need some kind of enforcement. Usually someone mentions in chat what is going on that a 3v3 is more like a 1v3 but then the situation is explained and all is well. But really, I agree with above dont let a few retardedly bad apples ruin it for everyone else. We have to deal with all the stupid people in life making life suck more every year, we do not need the politics on this site because a small minority have a stick up their butt about clanmates covering turns.

If we have sticks up our butts it's in the power of cc to remove them. We didn't put them there in the first place, others did. While they are at it, why don't they take those sticks, once removed, and smack the rule benders over the head with them.

Bones2484 wrote:Eddie - Those were the quotes I was using that lead me to be under the assumption that you should not share a permanent password. But it appears as that has been clarified in other threads (including this one) since those original posts by KA was made. The idea seems to be that you can have someone's password, but you can only log into that account when that person is either on vacation or within an hour of missing a turn. Seems fair to me and I'm glad we finally got some sort of official response.

ok ty bones,

just hope they are really going to take time zones into account when people are sitting don't really bother aka that much as we have 3 players in all different time zones but i can still see it hard to make sure only 1 hour on the clock...and i am the same i am really glad they have introduced the rules.

the only thing that does concern me is that some of the sitting rules for clan wars could be seen as a breach of site rules and by the op it says it will be dealt with by clan moderators,i would like to see king achilles or c and a team member come in and say they are going to agree to all of these rules being dealt with by a clan mod and not a c and a mod. or any cheating in clan wars not being seen as site cheating but seen as clan mod territory. including forum bans for posts in war threads etc they will not join the esculating ban for other areas of the site.

Funkyterrance wrote: Just because you have an explanation doesn't prove that there wasn't abuse. "

Funky, your comment exemplifies why this entire ruling is overkill.

Having to "prove there wasn't abuse," because you take one turn for someone who, for whatever reason, couldn't play that day.

Maybe it's not "vacation," maybe it's "working 15 hours a day this weekend, and kid has a ballgame I have to attend, so won't have time to log in, can you watch my games?"

How is any of this abuse of the "old system?" But under the new system this could be considered abuse, especially if I took the turn at my convenience which may mean 7 hours before the turn ends because I'm going to bed and maybe me being tired when I finished my turns and went to check my clanmate's turns is why I forgot to type stahr in one of the games. So now this could be abuse? It's overkill and just plain stupid.

If there was a systematic habit of this, then sure, I could agree that that's abuse, but the new "official clan sitting rules" aren't about finding a systematic habits of watching other players turns, which is found by looking at ip's, these official rules go way beyond that into, as I said, overkill and stupidity.

Funkyterrance wrote: Just because you have an explanation doesn't prove that there wasn't abuse. "

Funky, your comment exemplifies why this entire ruling is overkill.

Having to "prove there wasn't abuse," because you take one turn for someone who, for whatever reason, couldn't play that day.

Maybe it's not "vacation," maybe it's "working 15 hours a day this weekend, and kid has a ballgame I have to attend, so won't have time to log in, can you watch my games?"

How is any of this abuse of the "old system?" But under the new system this could be considered abuse, especially if I took the turn at my convenience which may mean 7 hours before the turn ends because I'm going to bed and maybe me being tired when I finished my turns and went to check my clanmate's turns is why I forgot to type stahr in one of the games. So now this could be abuse? It's overkill and just plain stupid.

.

the CD's have already said if you miss typing it in the odd game you'll be ok.

The 1 hour rule is ridiculous. Having to get scheduled permission to be awol for a day or so is ridiculous.

There's a big difference between someone systematically playing the game for another player, and someone being casual about letting another player take the odd turn for them because today was a rough work/home/electricity/internet connection day, on what is supposed to be a casual game site.

These rules are more strict about being absent and how to be absent for a turn, than many folks' workplaces are for having to go do something unplanned/unscheduled at the last minute so needing someone to cover part of their workshift.

eddie2 wrote:the only thing that does concern me is that some of the sitting rules for clan wars could be seen as a breach of site rules

Not sure what you mean. The clan rules seem to be in line with the site rules (except for Rule #1 which is not a big deal), just put more clearly.

yep i am not wording it very well am i.

ok 2 recent cases cof, josko, both ended up in a ban/warning. this is on the escalating scale of site punishments. but if we were to follow these new clan rules they would not be punishable by c and a moderators. instead they would be dealt with by the clan moderation team who will issue clan war bans etc.

but we have not seen a post from king achilles to confirm this will be followed. example if a case like the previous c and a cases are brought forward will they be passed over to the clan mod teams to be dealt with on a clan war escalating punishment and can we get some confirmation that this will happen.

stahrgazer wrote:The 1 hour rule is ridiculous. Having to get scheduled permission to be awol for a day or so is ridiculous.

There's a big difference between someone systematically playing the game for another player, and someone being casual about letting another player take the odd turn for them because today was a rough work/home/electricity/internet connection day, on what is supposed to be a casual game site.

These rules are more strict about being absent and how to be absent for a turn, than many folks' workplaces are for having to go do something unplanned/unscheduled at the last minute so needing someone to cover part of their workshift.

It's overkill.

these rules are not for casual games, they are for competitive clan games.

stahrgazer wrote:The 1 hour rule is ridiculous. Having to get scheduled permission to be awol for a day or so is ridiculous.

There's a big difference between someone systematically playing the game for another player, and someone being casual about letting another player take the odd turn for them because today was a rough work/home/electricity/internet connection day, on what is supposed to be a casual game site.

These rules are more strict about being absent and how to be absent for a turn, than many folks' workplaces are for having to go do something unplanned/unscheduled at the last minute so needing someone to cover part of their workshift.

It's overkill.

Nothing is stopping you from simply missing turns if you can't play them yourself. If you're that casual on a site that's just for fun (not judging you, most of G1 feels this way) then you shouldn't care about a rare missed turn.

eddie2 wrote:the only thing that does concern me is that some of the sitting rules for clan wars could be seen as a breach of site rules

Not sure what you mean. The clan rules seem to be in line with the site rules (except for Rule #1 which is not a big deal), just put more clearly.

yep i am not wording it very well am i.

ok 2 recent cases cof, josko, both ended up in a ban/warning. this is on the escalating scale of site punishments. but if we were to follow these new clan rules they would not be punishable by c and a moderators. instead they would be dealt with by the clan moderation team who will issue clan war bans etc.

but we have not seen a post from king achilles to confirm this will be followed. example if a case like the previous c and a cases are brought forward will they be passed over to the clan mod teams to be dealt with on a clan war escalating punishment and can we get some confirmation that this will happen.

eddie

I think I can speak for C&A. If a site rule is broken and it is brought to our attention it will NOT BE IGNORED. These new clan rules only pertain to account sitting.

Having to "prove there wasn't abuse," because you take one turn for someone who, for whatever reason, couldn't play that day.

Maybe it's not "vacation," maybe it's "working 15 hours a day this weekend, and kid has a ballgame I have to attend, so won't have time to log in, can you watch my games?"

How is any of this abuse of the "old system?" But under the new system this could be considered abuse, especially if I took the turn at my convenience which may mean 7 hours before the turn ends because I'm going to bed and maybe me being tired when I finished my turns and went to check my clanmate's turns is why I forgot to type stahr in one of the games. So now this could be abuse? It's overkill and just plain stupid.

If there was a systematic habit of this, then sure, I could agree that that's abuse, but the new "official clan sitting rules" aren't about finding a systematic habits of watching other players turns, which is found by looking at ip's, these official rules go way beyond that into, as I said, overkill and stupidity.

Look, man, I'm on your side really. You are obviously not the sort of person who these rules were meant to moderate but that doesn't change the fact that those people are out there. It's not overkill if people are abusing the system. Since we don't know for certain just how many people are abusing it(we know at least some are, even this thread proves it), we have to make a rule that covers everyone, even the ones who don't bend the rules. If the concept of a few rotten apples spoiling it for everyone is new to you, I'm sorry but it's a fact of life.

eddie2 wrote:the only thing that does concern me is that some of the sitting rules for clan wars could be seen as a breach of site rules

Not sure what you mean. The clan rules seem to be in line with the site rules (except for Rule #1 which is not a big deal), just put more clearly.

yep i am not wording it very well am i.

ok 2 recent cases cof, josko, both ended up in a ban/warning. this is on the escalating scale of site punishments. but if we were to follow these new clan rules they would not be punishable by c and a moderators. instead they would be dealt with by the clan moderation team who will issue clan war bans etc.

but we have not seen a post from king achilles to confirm this will be followed. example if a case like the previous c and a cases are brought forward will they be passed over to the clan mod teams to be dealt with on a clan war escalating punishment and can we get some confirmation that this will happen.

eddie

I think I can speak for C&A. If a site rule is broken and it is brought to our attention it will NOT BE IGNORED. These new clan rules only pertain to account sitting.

Evil Semp, you beat me to it. I think there's a lot of confusion over the mechanics of what is happening here. Clans are a side benefit of CC that CC has elevated to a certain status, just like Tournaments are. There are site-wide rules in place that govern EVERYTHING including Clans and Tournaments, but there are also specific rules in place that govern only Tournaments or only Clans. We don't need administrators or multi-hunters to give credence to the rules that are decided by the leaders of the Clan world. What they say pretty much goes as long as it's not too crazy or violating site rules.

I understand people being concerned about what the site rules are for account sitting, but those rules aren't changed by any of this stuff going on here. Now that we've ascertained that simply having someone's password is not against site rules nor against clan rules, the whole issue is pretty much irrelevant to the current issue: whether these ADDITIONAL rules governing play in clan games are appropriate.

I still haven't received any response to these ideas. I just want to make sure they're not missed.

First, the 1 hour rule should probably be expanded, but at the very least there need to be exceptions. Exception 1: An emergency in which the sitter has been informed that turns need to be taken should be treated the same as any prearranged absence. Exception 2: Once a player comes within the 1 hour rule and after efforts have been made to contact that player, sitting should be permitted at the minimum levels necessary to ensure no missed turns. If only one player has their password and that player is going to bed, this means they could clear 8 hours or so. Exception 3: After a player has missed a turn, he is considered in a state of emergency and the other exceptions apply. Exception 4: Other exceptions handled on a case-by-case basis, e.g., Goranz' posts about being in a different timezone.

Just thought of this: change "vacation" or whatever it says now to "prearranged absence, e.g., vacation"

I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that I can't play some other turns while I'm away. Sometimes, as a favor to my sitter, I try to clear the easy turns or the turns in games that are already decided to decrease the sitter's gameload. I understand how this could be abused, so I get why the rule is as it is, but I'm not terribly happy about not being able to help my sitter out while he's helping me.